Ocean World Editorial Is `Unfair Representation`

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

July 2, 1992

Your editorial ``Ocean World getting off too easy`` is rife with inaccuracies and is an unfair representation of a well-run tourist attraction that was swept up in the politics of animal rights extremists.

As you point out, Ocean World admits no guilt or wrongdoing. That is officially stated in our agreement with the USDA. The Sun-Sentinel may consider it good business to spend thousands of dollars and the time of its top executives to fight a years-long, bureaucratic struggle, but we consider the settlement a prudent decision.

Never reported in the Sun-Sentinel was the undisputed fact that our marine park was never cited with any of the wild accusations made by the animal rights extremists. Following the self-serving furor created by the Dolphin Project, the USDA apparently felt compelled to give Ocean World a white glove inspection. What resulted were 11 specific allegations, the majority of which were largely technical in nature.

There has never been a charge that the skin of any dolphin was burned due to over-chlorinated water, as stated in your editorial.

We were fully prepared to fight these allegations, and still believe we are innocent. To write an editorial that implies the park was convicted or found guilty of any animal abuse is irresponsible. The settlement and terms thereof represent no such situation.

Ocean World reopened its doors June 20. As usual, all our animals are in full view of the public. Reporters from the Sun-Sentinel have ignored invitations to come into the park and examine our animals. Perhaps the facts would get in the way of a good story.

In this case, the newspaper sided with self-aggrandizing extremists who have no accepted credentials or history of contributing to the public welfare. Please get in touch with your own community.